If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

Is this 'put your position into simple language for us? Trying to blind us with science? Deliberately obstructing the discussion of the simple methods required to keep bees treatment free? In fact what does it have to do with treatment-free beekeeping at all?

Mike

Originally Posted by WLC

Adam:

Here is a quote from a poster board presentation by Wayne Hunter et al.:

"Traditional PCR along with gel electrophoresis for each of these bee viruses showed that DWV and KBV have integrated into a segment of the A. mellifera genome."

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

Sometimes, sometimes partially, sometimes mostly artificially. I seek out 'survivor' colonies, and value most highly those where locals attest continuous occupation for a number of years. These are, arguably, resistant via natural selection. In my apiary I systematically breed toward resistance, using these and other imported stock (swarms with unknown background). There are 'survivor' feral colonies around me, so get genetic input from those. My treatment-free bees are resistant through a combination of local evolution - adaptation would be a better word - and artificial selection.

Originally Posted by WLC

What evolved?

The bees did and probably the mites did too. The 'broad hygienic' and VSH and other behaviours are expressed more strongly/often now as a result of ... parentage. Bees with what-it-takes have made more bees with what-it-takes, while bees without-what-it-takes haven't made any. At the same time the varroa have likely been adapting. The milder strains tend to be more tolerated (by me) and have been carried in on feral bees. The viruses too (the paper suggests) may have moderated.

Originally Posted by WLC

Some pretty smart scientists in Sweden couldn't identify that conclusively in the Gotland hives.

Science -particularly the life-sciences - very often find loose ends as well as firm conclusions. It makes no difference to the firm conclusions, and provides leads to future studies.

Originally Posted by WLC

Silly me, I split a DWV infected hive and decide that maybe somebody should try and get some hard evidence for treatment-free resistance via evolution (transgenesis).

There is TONS of evidence for treatment-free resistance via evolution (adaptation) and via husbandry (though none that I know of for transgenesis).

Its a question that signals to me insufficient understanding of husbandry to warrent offering advice!

Husbandrymen monitor their lifestock constantly for signs of disease, and select and propagate accordingly. When symptoms of disease appear resistance is lower, when they disappear it can be assumed to be higher. However: as I've said (and someone has confirmed with references) varroa is the main target - as the vector of diseases. There are a number of ways of evaluating for the various recognised types of varroa resistance, and again, monitoring or assaying one way or another supplies clear indications of the type and degree of resistance.

Or you can simply go with size and productivity. Without treatments only those that build, fetch and store the best are those with the sorts of qualities - including suitable resistance - that you want.

Hives that thrive best are standing demonstrations of broad resistance to those diseases present in the environment. Of course a new disease might come along and knock them down - in which case they will only be thriving because such diseases are absent. The only way to demonstrate resistance to a specific disease would be deliberate exposure.

For example, Gene Robinson, who was on Beeologics' advisory board, went on to work for Monsanto. He was also a key player in sequencing the Honeybee Genome.

There were other scientists (and beekeepers) who entangled themselves in a web of 'conflict of interest' as well. I've also identified examples of the delberate suppression of important findings/information/technology.

My own conclusion is that the entire Honeybee Genome needs to be re-sequenced independently, and they need to pay special attention to transposable elements.

You can't serve two masters, Science and Monsanto, at the same time.

All that being said, I did use Gillespie's results to target the R2 site in Honeybees.

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

What infuriates me is someone who is a proponent of "democratic science" being so cryptic and oddly evasive. I've respectfully asked a number of questions about how exactly a beekeeper can utilize the supposed benefits that you are referring to. I've sent pm's. But so far, all we have are breadcrumbs that leave us basically where we already are - we breed from the best of the stock we have. The only difference is that you seem to be suggesting that to make splits of stock which is under pressure is a good thing. To me that's pretty much unavoidable.

Beyond that - no details. 9 pages of scratching, a bunch of web searching to supplement your 'tidbits', as you seem bent on making what information you do share as difficult to understand as possible, and in the end I've got "you split into a challenge to raise a new queen".

Do you know anything about beekeeping? If you do, then maybe you could talk in beekeeping terms. Then maybe you wouldn't feel like you're speaking a language that no one can hope to understand - and you can quit speaking that language and speak in the one we're all familiar with. But maybe you don't speak that language. I have never heard anyone talk about "splitting into" anything. I can split and introduce a queen; I can split and let the bees raise a queen.

As I've said repeatedly. I am happy to have you at the table here, and I'm just about as open and interested as anyone. But I'm beginning to feel toyed with, and that's annoying.

Share or don't share. But don't go on suggesting you've got information of pivotal importance but refuse to break it down in such a way as to make it truly useful to the people your speaking to.

So you're asking us to abandon the deeply empirically tested and deeply theoretically supported method we know, and ... just make splits from anything instead. And somehow, magically, our bees will gain resistance.

Have I got that right?

It seems we must also understand; the mechanism by which that happens is too complicated to explain.

Will you do us all a favour and just supply straight and fulsome answers to these exact and straightforward questions?

If you can do that perhaps you'll gain respect for your theories. Without that you almost certainly won't, and people will continue to express exasperation one way or another. Participate in a discussion properly and people won't be short. Otherwise you're in the way, and people will let you know how they feel about that.

'Bill':
"I'm not convinved that the swedes were able to show anything beyond attenuated pests/pathogens in bottlenecked bees."

I've learned in several years of this discussion that some folks won't be convinced that mite resistant bees are a possibility no matter what evidence is put in front of them. And they won't tire either of telling everyone about it. I'd hoped the non-treatment forum would allow us to discuss these things without the constant interruptions and distractions of nay-sayers. Maybe we could have a special nay-sayers forum?

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

Mike,

JB is fine.

You have elaborated needlessly for the most part. I have a well-founded understanding of fundamental evolutionary principal and animal husbandry. I can respond point by point to your post, but that will get tedious quickly. Your points are well taken and spot on. They work well in the lab, or petri dish or in completely controlled populations. Our bees are none of the above. Your bees and my bees will mate with feral and transient populations that we have no husbandry control over whatsoever. You can propogate horses that are virus resistant within your own stable and insure that you do not breed from non-resistant stock. You do not have to allow your non-resistant horses to die, you just don't breed from them. Eventually your horses will be in demand (assuming you have not breed out other disirable traits) because of the resistance. But that is a confined and isolated population. Bees are none of the above.

We agree on much but disagree on a few important points. Really only disagree on only one important and basic point. That revolves around your words of “prevent “, “never” and “stop”. Once again you read “hinder” as prevent and I read it as impede. Once again you ignore the time part. I’ll also quote from the article (I usually don’t for copyright issues) From the article:

“The coevolutionary process required for establishing a coexisting relationship between this parasite and its new host is lacking, both in time and in selective pressures because the selective disadvantage of being virulent is removed by apicultural practices aiming to control this damaging new mite pest.”

It appears that you disagree with the time element as much as I disagree with the “selective pressure is removed” aspect. Selective pressure is impeded, not removed and there is a difference, removal dictates 100% success of treatments which is not the case.

You also are ignoring the real world application as it applies to the bee population. Husbandry works very well indeed when you control all breeding. It works well in a domesticated stock as you can select and choose what is allowed to reproduce. That is just not the case in populations with wild/feral subpopulations that cross breed with your selections. It is even more difficult when there are large mobile populations of managed livestock that are allowed to free range and mate with your selections. Also history has shown husbandry is capable of making the wrong selections and breeding out a characteristic that was later determined to be important and desirable.

It is quite a large presumption to state that human interaction in a non-domesticated species will stop that species’ evolution. It just won’t happen. Evolution will march right on with or without human muddling. And it will likely march to a tune of it’s choosing not ours.

Your stance, if accurate will doom any of your results to fail as soon as exposed to the “treated” populations. By your stance, the superior genetics you are breeding to, will fail. So where does that superiority go and what does it achieve? How does that flow into fundamental evolution?
Sorry, but you are wrong. Superior genetics will win out, treatments or not. When an inferior genetic line is allowed to reproduce it produces inferior genetics. AGREED? When an inferior line is allowed to cross breed with superior genetics, the superior genetics have a better chance at survival with or without treatments/intervention. The only caveat is when the superior genetics are purposefully killed or prevented from reproduction and that is not the case in this instance.

But everything above aside, I am going to ask a series of questions, I will provide my answers and you (or anyone else) can provide your/their answers, and then maybe a more focused conversation can follow. I am sure you will get a feel of where I am headed from the questions.

What is the currently accepted average time from introduction of mites to colony collapse if untreated and nonresistant?
JB: 3 years

Are treatments 100% effective at removal of varroa?
JB: No

Do 100% of the treated non-resistant hives survive?
JB: No

Which has the better chance of survival, a treated resistant colony or a treated nonresistant colony?
JB: Resistant colony.

Which has the better chance of survival, a non-treated resistant colony or a non-treated nonresistant colony?
JB: Resistant colony.

Which has the better chance of reproduction whether treatments are present or not, Superior or inferior genetics?
JB: Superior genetics.

Are there less tracheal mite treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago?
JB: yes, tracheal mite treatments are almost never applied.

Are there less Varroa treatments applied in US apiaries today than 5 years ago?
JB:yes; less people treat and treat less often than 5 years ago.

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

Mike: The only solution to people who won't cooperate is to stop feeding them. He's not providing you with what you ask, so cut him loose.

JB: I mostly agree with your answers except the last one. In my experience, feral bees have been at normal population for a number of years now. I know of a number of feral hives in my area (as well as where I used to live in Oregon) and I regularly catch feral swarms as well as ones which seem to come from kept hives. If the feral population rebounds as quickly as I've seen the kept population, the ferals have been fine for a decade.

As far as how varroa is treated, I believe you, but I don't have the numbers. I would like to see them. I hope its true.

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

Originally Posted by WLC

You never did explain how you know that your treatment-free bees are disease resistant.

Yes I did. If they weren't disease resistant they would be dying all over the place, but they are not. I have not treated for anything in nine and a half years. They keep telling me there's going to be a crash and it keeps not happening. Give me an alternate explanation.

Re: Coevolution of Honey Bees and Varroa Mites: A New Paper

I am very interested in how resistance evolves. So I'll ask more questions in an effort to understand.

WLC says:

" Then you can make new queens [so that non-LTR, retrotransposon (the 'resistance gene')bearing RNPs (the package), can translocate from nurse cells to oocytes (the germ-line mechanism)]."

So I have to raise my own queens from the struggling stock. Is the word "nurse" in this sentence referring to nurse bees? If so, how does the resistance gene translocate from the nurse cells?

I want to run a treatment free operation, and am presently forulating my approach to next season. I am very much interested in whatever the group might offer to help me figure our my plan for the coming season.